Why Heavy Bombers are Useless...

Have you noticed in Star Wars that very few factions use Heavy Bombers in their naval fleet? We take a look at why the development of star wars technology and tactics have made this type of starship more or less obsolete.
2nd Channel: / @generationtechshorts
Follow Generation Tech on Instagram: / generationtechofficial
Follow Generation Tech on Facebook: bit.ly/Generati...
Latest Videos: bit.ly/LatestGT
Popular Videos: bit.ly/GTPopular
Please help our channel by becoming a Patron: bit.ly/GTPatreon
Follow our Host
ALLEN XIE
KZbin / @thebeardedasianman
INSTAGRAM AXIEFILMS
TIKTOK AXIEFILMS
FACEBOOK / axiefilms

[@TotallyNotAFox]

Nowadays strategic bombers like the B-52 were refitted to launch cruisse missiles instead of free falling bombs, allowing them to stay in safer air space without having to go toe to toe with enemy fighters or SAMs as much

[@constc6721]

Aren't these the revolver like lunchers? That system is sick af if you consider that the cruise missels can be tipped with nukes☠️ Star Wars classifies as retro sci fi i guess😂 Remeber:"A long time ago...but with futur stuff.🖖😂

[@davidcahill1131]

This!! Aside from stealth bombers, the old strategic bombers (B1, B52, Russian anc Chinese versions of them) are effectively missile trucks. Allowing a country to launch long range missiles from unpredictable directions at a shorter notice than a ship or road launcher.

[@cdmonmcginn7561]

they also have an Ewar suite that can out jam basically anything else.

[@cdmonmcginn7561]

@@constc6721 no, thats the B-2, the B-52 uses a straight stack IIRC.

[@michaeledmunds7056]

​@@cdmonmcginn7561leave it to the US to give a stealth bomber a revolver that shoots nukes.

[@lordMartiya]

The Night of a Thousand Tears was the Empire proving a point. If they just wanted to make the planet uninhabitable they could have parked a trio of ISD in orbit and executed a Base Delta Zero, that is a bombardment so devastating that just blowing up the planet is considered more merciful... But that could have had people think the Empire was scared to fight the Mandalorians directly. So they invaded, killed the Mandalorians one by one, and deployed vulnerable bombers to devastate the land to show they COULD. And that not even having stuff too valuable to keep the fleet at bay was enough to save you if the Empire attacked.

[@illegalopinions4082]

I think I'm misunderstanding your last sentence. Are you saying that the empire attacked even though the Mandelorians had valuable assets or that even though they had valuable and effective assets to repel the invasion, the Empire pushed through and invaded anyway? I'd appreciate a clarification on it, please.

[@talscorner3696]

My guess would be the OP meant the Empire chose to prove a point so hard, especially since Mandos had all their tech, gubbins, training and beskar.

[@lordMartiya]

@@illegalopinions4082 I'm saying that the Empire had complete orbital superiority and didn't need to invade to annihilate the Mandalorians, but did so anyway to prove they could. So that no other world would think they were safe just because they were too valuable to be annihilated from orbit, as that would only mean that the Imperial Army would come down and annihilate them anyway with methods that preserved what was too valuable for orbital bombardment. After all, if they did it to the Mandalorians with their weapons, training, and Beskar armor, what hope did anyone else have?

[@Cakes71681]

Not entirely sure I agree with you on this, I think the problem with them is that they were used in naval combat where they are next to useless. They would have been way better as an economical alternative to capital ships for orbital strikes, kind of like how B-52s were used in Afghanistan.

[@rolandswift4311]

I came here to say the exact same thing. It would've made so much more sense if they were an old CIS or Empyreal design meant to be brought in by carriers to spread out and drop payloads on a planet's surface. If they wanted them to be used for "naval" engagements: all they'd have to do is rotate the frickin "magazine" 90 degrees. They supposedly launch their payload via magnetism, so it would basically turn them into giant grenade launcher railguns. Plus; It would MASSIVELY reduce their front profile and make them harder to hit Heck- It would've made more sense to say they were INTENDED for INDUSTRIAL use in rapidly terraforming large patches of land or blasting through tough rock from a safe distance for mining purposes.

[@Mooke1312]

Those bombers were certainly designed for low orbit planetary bombardment. Definetely not meant for being pushed into a dedicated space combat role.

[@michaelnewswanger2409]

@@Cakes71681 Very true, it makes more sense as an imperial design for attacking shielded targets. Bomblets are dumb against ships. The rebellion should design the equivalent to a WW2 dive bomber. A high damage single payload that can be deployed in swarms.

[@zoro115-s6b]

@@michaelnewswanger2409 That's what the Y-wing is.

[@michaelnewswanger2409]

@@zoro115-s6b I think the Y wing is more like a torpedo bomber than a dive bomber.

[@SpottedHares]

Well despite having a 100% casualties rate they still took out a Dreadnought for far less then a capital ship cost.

[@mcmarkmarkson7115]

It was just a movie. There is no way in hell a bomber that slow would be allowed to get this close to an enemy ship. It would be like an entire US aircraft carrier group allowing some pirates to get in range to drop molotov cocktails on the carrier deck xD Altho its already unrealistic how the xwing ever get close to any of the ships either as each xwing should be outnumbers at least 10 to 1

[@sumukhvmrsat6347]

Sequels is dumbfock stupid , there is no way that could logically happen , if need watch echartslsdders battle breakdown for extra detailing of someone you can belive , but a slow as fock garbage truck type ship which can't even manever could never ever kill a dreadnought with 3 focking battlecruisers escorting , even if in incorrect escort positions , damn there should've been atleast 300 ties for the resurgents alone 1. If the bomber was instead a cr90 corvette with 1000 proton bombs , or if the proton bombs were launched from far or mines preposition, then only it would work Sequels are focking dumb

[@jacksonhoiland2664]

Taking it out was still a fluke and against a horribly designed ship that was abnormally vulnerable to bombers and had almost no backup compared to what a stupid commander would have done. That was not replicable and would be even worse against any other target or any other situation that it could expect to face.

[@chrisho6874]

I generally liked The Last Jedi but I really disliked that whole Resistance Heavy Bomber attack on the Dreadnaught which the ships were pretty much useless in attacking as they got easily picked off given how very slow they are. A heavy transport ship is faster than them. The rebels sure got ripped off on buying them.

[@pepperedash4424]

Only because said Dreadnought was poorly designed with a "shoot here to kill" weak spot, had mediocre at best point defense, and the FO did not deploy the Fulminatrix properly. Bad writing and FO incompetence is what took out the Dreadnought, not the Starfortresses.

[@jef_3006]

If you think about, the Starfortresses were apparently ordered at exactly the moment the Rebellion transitions into the New Republic, and therefore, also the exact moment they had to start really taking and holding territory. When hit-and-run tactics aren't actually enough anymore, and you actually have to start cracking open fortress worlds and heavily shielded military facilities, having a heavy bomber on hand starts to make sense.

[@casbot71]

A incredibly powerful bomber that could have been easily developed is a modified *Acclimator* as a strategic bomber. Load up the cargo bays and prehaps the internal troop capacity with racks for proton bombs and _just one_ could have completely wiped out the CIS ground forces and even the landed Core ships at the first battle of Geonosis. And it was fast and could take and give hits as well, so it could get on target and deliver its payload.

[@boomstick7506]

Ah, the B-52 tech tree

[@markwalker4485]

@@boomstick7506 or just reinvent the old Mosquito. Can carry the bomb load as a heavy bomber and was well known as a fighter. Reason why it was never used as a heavy bomber is her range when loaded.

[@eddapultstab2078]

Strategic bombers are basically flying ships, they have often have a crew, have amenities for long term operations and carry an immense amount ordinance. In star wars the size would no longer make it a "snub fighter" but a full blown combat vessel which why we don't see them. They are there but we see them vessels decorating the battlefield.

[@lukesearle1302]

​@@markwalker4485I could see the YT series being used for this. Being refitted for a fast, heavy bomber role.

[@Iden_in_the_Rain]

@@boomstick7506 War Thunder mention, also I’d say it’s more like if they took that one Lockheed Martin flying aircraft carrier design and then turned it into a carpet bomber

[@Adr1231]

ARC-170 was in the wrong time

[@YellowTissueBox]

Bro.

[@mikewaterfield3599]

That was no bomber. It was more comparable to an attack platform.

[@dfu3764]

Also used in the wrong roll. Would have been great as a recon or scout ship to screen star systems before the main fleet moved in

[@spark300c]

@@dfu3764 yep that design for. it why they go for a bigger crew for longer missions.

[@leonardobroza6298]

I would like to think that if the Y-wing were to be a F-111 then the ARC would be comparable do an F-15 Strike Eagle, given it's fighter capabilities.

[@johnpjones1775]

In general medium-heavy bombers don’t make sense in most sci-fi settings with orbital combat. They make the most sense in orbit, but a Capitol ship can do the same job from orbit, and if you don’t have orbital superiority large bombers are too big and require too much infrastructure to reasonably hide from the aforementioned orbital bombardment.

[@polishscribe674]

It's like saying we don't need mortars because we have cannons. We absolutely do because they have different roles.

[@johnpjones1775]

That is a horrible analogy. If we could afffordably carry and deliver the ordinance necessary from surface ships we wouldn’t have bombers today… But since spaceships don’t have the restriction sea going vessels have they can do the job. The point of a bomber is to attack a ground based position, the larger the bomber the longer the range (typically) and payload. A spaceship is basically just a giant bomber already.

[@polishscribe674]

@@johnpjones1775 well I wasn't talking about heavy bombers, more like light ones. Supporting land forces with orbital strike could do more damage than necessary.

[@johnpjones1775]

So your post had nothing to do with my comment

[@Iden_in_the_Rain]

I think it would make sense if you look at it from an energy density standpoint, where unless you’ve got capital-ship-level energy the plasma bolts don’t survive through the atmosphere. That way having some type of bomber to go from space to the atmosphere to then fire plasma would make sense (well idk if the plasma-can’t-go-through-the-atmosphere part makes sense IRL though).

[@nathansheldahl]

I love how we bend over backwards trying to explain the first battle of Geonosis because of how poorly it was done in Attack of the Clones. It was made by a bunch of animators who had no idea how real wars and battles are fought and just made it look cool (according to them anyways). They got trashed then and now for how utterly ridiculous that battle was that they hired ex military guys to model/teach them how real soldiers and battles are fought in Revenge Of The Sith which much better done. Back to the point though the “tactics” used at Geonosis were much more Neopoleonic than just classic Soviet/Russian meat wave attacks as in meat wave attacks at least the soldiers would try to find some cover if possible and use their armor properly. In this battle the clones were in tight parade formation while marching and fighting the enemy head on which is strong characteristic of warfare of Napoleon era (with differences of course). There weren’t any real military tactics used here as stated before but I would say this is the closest in my opinion. Incredibly stupid tactics either way and cost a lot of unnecessary casualties but baptism of fire battles usually do that in real life.

[@AdmiralBlackstar]

I mean, there is real-world precedent. The early battles of many wars have factions struggling to adapt to new terrain, new equipment, and often the metaphorical cobwebs of a military that's gotten complacent in peacetime.

[@EGRJ]

@@AdmiralBlackstar "Generals are always prepared to fight the last war" - attr. Churchill

[@carlosdgutierrez6570]

I mean, due the Russan reformations nobody in the SW galaxy has fought a large scale war for a thousand years so it is only natural that the institutional culture of how to fight an actual war instead of just police and anti piracy actions is all but gone beyond theories written in a thousand years old books. So I don't find all that outrageous that the very first large scale military engagement in over a thousand years was a complete shit show of military incompetence from both sides, now, by the end of the war there would have been more than enough time to relearn all the "muscle memory" of how wars are actually fought.

[@Wintermute909]

I really think the depth & detail of all Star Wars lore is so great only *because* of all the sloppy writing in all the main films! And tbf also because the undelying concepts or archetypes are so good. I think these two factors combine and people are forced to get really, really creative to explain all these weird plot/world building holes of the main films.

[@generalvictorironraven.1347]

Honestly the first battle of geonosis it's even Napoleonic. Napoleonic warfare had a huge emphasis on forming a strong cohesive battle formation and occupying advantages positions. It was not as so many seem to believe a thoughtless march into enemy fire for no good reason.

[@SkullivanBones]

The problem with heavy/strategic bombers is they're largely meant for hard ground targets, but star wars keeps pitting them against naval vessels. This was not their roll. Therefore they are bad at it.

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

A big reason those bombers got shafted was because unlike in ww2, where bombers could (ideally) fly higher and faster than most enemy fighters, altitude didn't matter. If a b17 flew at the same height at the same speed over Germany (in such a small squadron) the result would've been the same

[@lukesearle1302]

They got shafted as they don't understand if those bombs just drop, why not be further away to launch? Why so close?

[@samuelzuleger5134]

That ideal never really existed in combat. Even in WWII, loss rates were around 10%. As in, 10% of B-17s wouldn't come back from a single mission. This is why long-range escorts (like the P-51), and an assortment of smaller and faster bombers and fighter-bombers took on more and more of the B-17/B-24 load in 1944 and '45. It only worked in Japan because Japan didn't have radar, any effective AAA, or enough fighters. More US airmen died over Germany than marines in the Pacific Theatre of Operations. Strategic bombers have, in practical combat, never worked without a ton of support planes to clear the air for them. The biggest problem in SW is that, since it is in space, the factors of gravity and weight are almost non-existent, so why not use a corvette or strap dozens of literal rockets to X-Wings and fire them from BVR. Yeah, I know, not as much dramatic tension.

[@luisemoralesfalcon4716]

This was so weird hearing the intro in Spanish. Buen trabajo. Big bombers need good defense escorts as well accounting for AA weapons.

[@lhongx2]

yeah

[@Zehamas]

It was kinda nic to hear though, you have to admit

[@nightwolfnordberg9476]

Or invisibility

[@darkbooger]

Or just be too fast and stealthy to be hit like

[@luisemoralesfalcon4716]

@@Zehamas that is true.

[@barnettmcgowan8978]

I think the big problem is that the creative team didn't have a good understanding of WW2 vehicles and tactics. Star Wars space combat is WW2 naval combat. Heavy Bombers weren't used for naval combat; they were used for land combat. If the goal is to rhyme with WW2, then this ship doesn't rhyme. That's why it just doesn't work or make sense.

[@Freesorin837]

My in universe explanation as to why long-range guided munitions aren't more common is that technology has advanced to the point where jamming/disabling smart munitions is just too easy. There's no point using these weapons at scale because they would be too easy to counter, and if your ships are reliant on smart weapons, then you'd be out of luck. We see Jango Fett using homing missiles that can detect and avoid obstacles while following a target, and i think it's safe to assume that those are pretty top of the line. Direct fire dumb weapons are just more reliable and economical.

[@keith6706]

"They say I can be outsmarted. Maybe...maybe. But I have yet to meet man who can outsmart bullet." - The Heavy

[@warhammer8867]

They should have developed jamming seeking missiles, I think the technology didn't advance, because highly maneuverable fighters compared the SU-57 or F-22 where they can use turbolaser to destroy the enemy, much cheaper and dont need to extended their logistic of payload or expensive missile that cost more than the enemy ships.

[@Temporal94]

@@warhammer8867 I think you're thinking of anti-radiation missiles, which are used to spike radar-guided anti-air emplacements. Anti-jammers aren't really a thing because jamming is about flooding a missile's guidance system with noise so that it cannot pick out its target-a very simplified analogy would be like asking you to find a red dot on a piece of paper, then dumping red glitter on the paper.

[@JohnSmith-yc6uv]

​@@Temporal94 Home-on-jam is just the seeker head aiming the the loudest point of noise. It simply turns in the direction of the strongest signal.

[@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818]

@@Temporal94 Anti radiation missiles absolutely do home in on jammers, and indeed anything with a radio source, which includes Radars, Jammers and communication systems. So a radiation homing missile is very much a great counter to jammers, because the only defense a jammer has against a radiation homer is turn the jammer off. And missiles with multiple seeking modes, such as a missile with both an active frequency hopping phased array sensor and a home in on radiation capability cannot be stopped with jammers alone. There is a good reason modern aircraft rely far more on stealth to survive rather than jammers, because jammers are a massive, here I am kick me sign.

[@wanderhillen2435]

The Death Star was a type of heavy bomber if you think about it. Ultimate tool for destroying strategic targets.

[@shanedoesyoutube8001]

No that's more like a schwerer Gustav in space

[@geoffreymowbray6789]

The Gozanti class could be used as stop gap conventual bomber because of its weight carrying capability.

[@TribbleArtCreations]

The Gozanti, basically a jack of all trades ship. You throw more weapons on it, have it carry fighters, or cargo(inside and outside). Decent armor for not initially being a military vessel.

[@Artanis99]

Starfortress is so bad because the contract was given to starfighter company so they have built with starfighter parts they could manufacture. Had they contacted freighter company it would have been functional.

[@antoineguerrier2965]

I had this idea of a subplot that would fix both those horrendous bombers and the lightspeed ram. It would also neatly explain why the Rebel Alliance 2 didn't send more than a few fighters to take out the Death Star 3. While episode 7 happened, Admiral Holdo's forces were tied in a battle trying to destroy a research space station where the Empire 2 was creating missiles that are capable of untold destruction if used on a planet (and that can very conveniently pretty much destroy a capital ship in one hit). They managed to steal the missiles that had already been build before blowing up the station and hightailing with their booty. (That would be the new intro sequence.) It was an overall great move on their part. The only issue was that they didn't have a launching platform for those missiles. They pretty much needed to refit one of their capital ships for that. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough time to do that before having to evacuate their base. So in a desperate move, they managed to tie one to an A-Wing and the plan was to fly the A-Wing at the enemy ship, arm the missile (that's about as long as an A-Wing), detach it before impact and do some crazy last second turn to avoid crashing. To make that work, they needed to disable the point defence of the target and cause enough chaos so that the A-Wing could sneak in. After Poe did his crazy stunt, he flew straight back to the MC-80 to get into the modified A-Wing's cockpit, because it was his plan and he was pretty much the only person capable of pulling it off. Except that as he's about to do that, he got stunned from behind by one of his squadmates and Rose's sister took his place. Eventually, she did manage to destroy the enemy capital ship, but at the cost of her life, which haunts Poe for the rest of the film at least. The new plan to escape the first order would be to sneak one of those missiles in the Supremacy and blow it up. Once again, Poe came up with the plan and volunteered. Rose and Finn volunteered to go with him. Finn because he knows his way around the ship and Rose because she can get them past the shields. (No Canto Byte segment as it's already been replaced by the new intro.) Eventually the plan fails because the Empire detects the missile and they get captured (similarly to what happened in the film). Hux hails the Rebels 2 to reveal that he has Poe and co, and asks for surrender of the MC-80, their last remaining capital ship. The reason for that being that the Empire wants those missiles back to resume production since the research data is gone. The Rebels 2 evacuate on the stealth ships and only Ackbar remains at the helm. He turns the ship around and feigns surrender. Hux is suspicious, but takes the bait. When he gets close enough, he arms the missiles, raises the front shields on his ship and goes for a ramming manoeuver. (Classic Anakin move btw.) Hux commands his entire fleet to shoot the enemy ship while he orders to retreat with the Supremacy and raise his front shield as well. (He might even say "It's a trap!" if we're being cheeky.) Right as his shields begin to falter, Ackbar says one last "For the Republic" and detonates his entire cargo of missiles, destroying most of the Empire's fleet and crippling the Supremacy. During the confusion, the strike team manages to steal a ship and make it to the planet. The rest of the film proceeds as it did.

[@bookkeeper7]

This is a very interesting Idea. It's insane that so many Randos on the internet can surpass a multi-billion dollar company in creativity. Who did they hire to oversee the script? A chipmunk high on Redbull?

[@brunoscarlatto4679]

As you said, it was poorly designed from the beginning. The worst of all is that it is a design that is easily replaceable with a modified Collerian freighter. Take the same model as the Millennium Falcon, add more shields and a front bay and that's it. You send them at full speed and when they are at the point they stop suddenly and drop the loads and leave.

[@casbot71]

A modified Correllian light freighter given Millennium Falcon upgrades not only could make a great bomber, but it also was a effective gunship that could outmanoeuvre the average snubfighter. So yes, as I've posted long essays before about this, and was going to recycle one until I saw your comment, a YT-1300GTI would be a deadly bomber.

[@gamerfan8445]

Or enlarge a Y-wing, and increase it turrets and armored.

[@RorikH]

I don't even think you'd need to modify the ship itself much, since there’s supposed to be a cargo container between the prongs. Just fill one of those with bomb racks and jettison it when you get there.

[@seanrea550]

Or assuming that the falcon has magnetic clamps, pull an iron squadron manuver and have the explosive laden containers clamped to the bottom.

[@Shadowghost36]

Wait, this is starting to sound familiar... Iron Squadron?

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

Well, in the Rebels series the Iron Squadron proved, that larger craft (Falcon, Ghost, etc, ) can survice long enough capital ship guns AND starfighters, while dropping "free fall" bombs - and if we go back to WWII, there was the Fritz-X. The Star Fortress was just a bad decision "in universe" and "out of universe". Another reason to say, the Sequel Trilogy is just fan fiction

[@vincentpuccio3689]

George Lucas also ripped off the whole ending of the movie 633 squadron. The ending of that movie had a squadron of mosquito bombers fly through a heavily defended fjord To attack a certain spot on the side of a mountain, they have a crumbled and avalanche down upon a heavy water plant much like the trench run in Star Wars

[@gingerbinger7485]

Indeed, also the mosquito (fighter-bomber) a much better comparison for the X-wing than the large Lancaster. And the fjord run is almost identical to the trench run.

[@flyinmehkite384]

I am still baffled by the lack of missile / torpedo corvettes. It seems like the perfect ship for that role since it is fast enough to get in and out and survivable enough to take a few hits as it gets oriented. The amount of firepower it could hold would allow it to punch up very high. Now the downsides are keeping munitions for it to function and losing one before it fired is a huge loss but the upsides more than make up for it.

[@graveyardshift6691]

The Empire At War game actually has a CR-90 variant 'Corellian Gunboat' which does this and all factions have an 'artillery' variant who hangs back at extreme ranges to launch large torpedoes which are best at destroying defensive stations but also have enough burst to shred fighter squadrons caught in the AOE burst.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

The Star Trek has if memory serves me right the Akira class that has a dozen forward facing torpedo launchers and 4 rear facing launchers. It can fire a literal stream of torpedoes

[@Nobody_important_at_all]

Ohhh please. I'm surprised the B52 BUFF isn't in the starwars universe.

[@alphatyrant8677]

People and cultures may pass away, but the BUFF is forever.

[@samuelzuleger5134]

Granted Grandpa BUFF can carry cruise missiles, JDAMs, and long-range nukes so it wouldn't/doesn't make sense in Star Wars, where you always have to get within 50 feet of your target. Actual combat vs. dramatic tension.

[@daniel_f4050]

@@samuelzuleger5134 That’s where the Resistance/New Republic failed. They didn’t have The Kid’s equivalent flying proper top cover or even any type of Wild Weasel flying SEAD missions to allow Grandpa BUFF to do his thing. In _A New Hope_ at least they had star fighters knocking out defensive turrets.

[@TribbleArtCreations]

I feel the Starfortress was actually more of a light frigate (it even somewhat resembles the Nebulon B Frigate) with bombing capabilities vs being an actual bomber.

[@graveyardshift6691]

Too big. The Nebulon Bs are actually 3-4 times bigger then the Corellian Corvette. The Starfortress is more Gunship size being more in line with the Millenium Falcon in scale. The Flying Fortress it's based on is also more of a gunship with a bomb bay then any kind of 'bomber'. Even one by its lonesome is a nightmare to attack with single seat fighters without superior numbers due to the sheer number of turrets present. Hence the nickname of 'Flying Fortress'. If the Star Fortresses were actually PROPERLY designed to be similar to the B17 they're based on, they would have easily plowed through the TIE fighters with little resistance. The biggest danger would have been AA which Poe removed with his highspeed maneuverers prior.

[@TribbleArtCreations]

@@graveyardshift6691 reason I said light frigate is because it's size is too large to be a typical fighter or bomber, and is smaller, less armored and armed than the Nebulon B Frigate which was a proper frigate. Looks like they should have probably used it for cargo and personnel transport vs bomber. It's too slow to be effective. Damn, if only they had B-Wings or K-Wings.....B-Wing being a heavy bomber/heavy fighter or K-Wing being an OP Gunship that would put holes in pretty much anything. If they were going for a B-17 feel, they missed the mark for the points you made. Essentially a gunship with bombing capabilities. B-17 wasn't some slow moving easy target. Resistance could have at least found some LAAT/b Gunships. The bomber variant had about the same speed as the standard LAAT Gunship, more armor, weapons and more evasive. Also, aside from some obscure mention in a book(like the All Terrain Heavy Enforcer), it would've been great to actually see said LAAT/b Gunship in a movie since we didn't see them in the Clone Wars show.

[@andersonic]

In the TIE Fighter games you could choose missiles, rockets, or bombs trading speed for power. Bombs did the most damage but didn't steer or self propel. You had to release them up close flying toward the target and pull away to draw fire. That's what the StarFortress attack reminded me of, and why everyone loved TIE Fighter.

[@bjturon]

For me, the 'Ghost' and 'Falcon' are the bombers given their size and range, kinda like the B-25 or RAF Mosquito, with starships, you don't really need heavy/strategic bombers, but if you did have a slow but heavy bomber, I would see them as standoff weapon platforms like a modern B52 with cruise missiles, like a Star Fortress could launch a 100 proton torpedoes. As for bombs, yeah like the B52 this would seem fine for attacking ground installations or space stations, drop them andcuse inertia/gravity to propel them to the target. Last, don't forget that heavy bombers took large losses in WW2 without fighter escort.

[@jiyuhong5853]

technically the B-wing is a non-conventional Heavy bomber and so is a modified y wing

[@YellowTissueBox]

said it yourself. Non-conventional. Heavy bomber by definition, is vulnerable and mono purpose. You nerd.

[@captain_hammer]

I think they are more fighter-bombers or maybe medium bombers (aka tactial bombers), not heavy (strategic) bombers

[@jiyuhong5853]

@@captain_hammer why you write the same comment 4 times

[@captain_hammer]

@@jiyuhong5853 huh, that's a weird glitch... I'll delete the duplicates lol

[@katathoombz]

I enjoy the good will Alonso finds in himself, and the ability to dig up in-Universe-shenanigans, for the stuff that makes me go "wtf that's just _dumb._ " Alonso is a better man than I.

[@casbot71]

*How to in-universe fix the Starfortress.* _[Essay warning]_ Fit much larger engines on the back, and then flip the bomb magazine 90 degrees so it runs parallel to the length of the ship. Have the front of the magazine start just behind the cockpit so visibility and the front guns aren't blocked, and that makes the gun on the end of the magazine more practical as well. Also the ship is far easier to store in a hanger because it's more compact. And it has a much smaller target profile. Because the magazine isn't jutting out at right angles, there is less stress on the anchor point of the magazine to the body, and the connection runs the entire length, so larger engines won't tear it apart. And since the magazine would be longer than the ship, just extend the ship body back to match, and make it all engine. Another improvement would be to put another magazine on the opposite side and now make them side by side instead of above and below, either to further increase capacity (hope those extended engines are really powerful) or shorten the length of the bays so that each is smaller and the ship had stubby bomb wings on either side and better maneuverability and probably a better point defense layout because maximum coverage can be achieved with top and bottom turrets similar to the Falcons, and more laser cannons can be fitted on the front and back corners of the magazines, but at that point it needs more power for guns which yada yada yada. But that does require two bomb mechanisms unless there's one in the central body of the ship that both feed into from the side. And with the bomb magazines now on the sides of the ships, all sorts of fun modifications can occur. First off, landing gear, it just has to extend beyond the belly turret(s), allowing the ship to land and dock without specialised facilities (what do you do in one of the standard models if your support ship is lost ?). And as mentioned before it now takes up a lot less space in your hanger, which also no longer needs custom bays. With the bomb magazines now blended with the hull, the whole superstructure can be more easily reinforced, armoured, and shielded, increasing durability. The magazines no longer need crew access running their entire length, which takes up valuable space, and is yet another place to drop the remote control. This saves A LOT of internal space, allowing a yet more compact and efficient design, boosting other aspects of the ship. Any turrets mounted on the outside of the magazines (if you've gone for the gunship approach) can be accessed directly from the side of the ship by a small access way on the end of the magazine. Or if you've decided to go with the front or back launched system (with powerful rail launchers or the missiles variant) the access way can be from a small corridor above the magazine that connects to the main body. The ship is now a long cylinder with two oblongs running parallel, and this can be blended into a single rounded oblong design for structural efficiency. Although if I was given a bunch of existing heavy bombers I'd just go with flipping the magazine sideways and sticking extra engines on back as the most efficient use of existing resources. I hear they're going cheap because they are only useful for bombing stationary civilian targets with no defense at all, and in that case, dropping a asteroid on them is cheaper.

[@graveyardshift6691]

Or just replace it with the Y-Wing since torpedo bombers make more sense and the Y-wing project would have seen a revival given it was the torpedo bomber that broke the Empire. Any 'heavy bombers' of the type of the Star Fortress would have long since been moved since this isn't the fight they were meant for.

[@davidponseigo8811]

My father was US Air Force Air Police attached to the Defense Atomic Support Agency and the Special Weapons Project and he was part of the original B1-B Bomber project and the XB-70 experimental Bomber and he told me when I was young that the technology was so far ahead of what was being used at the time and he stated they were probably behind some of the UFO sightings in the early to mid 1960's. He was invited to be present when the XB-70 was stripped of its technology before it was moved into its museum.

[@vald.1617]

A point. The reason why combat in Star Wars is always in such close quarters is because of the way shields work in that setting. Shield bubbles block energy, and smaller fast moving targets are easier to block than things the size of ships. Ships always get so close and broadside each other because they need to get within the enemy shield to do any serious damage. Placing the guns inside the enemy shield allows them to damage the ship unimpeded. The reason bombers are still so widely used is for that exact reason. They're slow enough and heavy enough that they can reliably pass through enemy shields with minimal pushback, then once inside they're able to deploy their payload uninterrupted. Still niche, sure, but they have a definite purpose and heavy-bombers are well suited to these exact scenarios. The Starfortress was a stupid design to not have a shield generator itself while being so slow it can't avoid flak.

[@Sentinal375]

Heya Gen Tech! You do awesome work with these videos!! Would love to see more videos about Industries and stuff. Continue the great work!!

[@tsamoka6496]

Not bad, a full 15 minutes of explaining how disney corpos don't have a single original thought in their heads. Thanks, Allen!

[@MaliciousMallard]

The TIE/ln is an L, not an i. It stands for TIE Line Fighter :) The TIE/in is the interceptor

[@Sephiroth144]

FYI, the B-24 Liberator was the most produced bomber (aircraft, apparently) in WWII (18,493 vs 12,731 B-17s)

[@RoderickGMacLeod]

I'd say that the Wildcat analogous to the Z-95 Headhunter and the Hellcat was analogous to the X-Wing. F4F Wildcat had four .50 cal Browning machine guns. F6F Hellcat had six .50 cal Browning machine guns or two 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons and four .50 cal Browning machine guns.

[@SpiritWolf1966]

I enjoy all of Generation Tech videos 😅🎉

[@nobody3761]

Also want to say, you could us them like TotallyNotAFox said, which is what a world building thing I'm in uses them as, which is carrying anti-ship missiles usually fitted with MIRV's to help warships overwhelm enemy Point Defense, or to ambush a fleet when it exits FTL, they can basically serve the role a torpedo boat would, but are cheaper, though still die roughly as easy.

[@pyeitme508]

AYO Allen ya got smooth Spanish!

[@Brickmovestudio]

Looks like Allen is doing well in Spanish class.

[@persuasivebarrier2419]

now we need an outro in spanish.

[@SantaClaus-kk8zr]

I thought that was Portuguese

[@GhostRydr1172]

Bueno...😅

[@Dennis-vh8tz]

I think the utility of the SF17 would've relied on 2 things: the complete absence of anti-starfighter point defences on Imperial capital ships, and starfighter dominance. Tthe Rebellion and New Republic almost had always had both better starfighters, and more of them, compared to their Imperial foes, so escorting fighters could keep TIE fighters away from the SF17's leaving their targets defenceless. In constrast the First Order capital ships had anti-starfighter laser cannon batteries, and even if their starfighters were still inferior to those used by the Resistance, the Resistance starfighters were probably outnumbered and thus starfighter superiority remained contested. The result is what would've happened if B17's had made a low altitude attack against a real WWII battleship. The bombers would've been torn appart by literally hundreds of anti-aircraft guns.

[@captainobvious9233]

It would make Sense if the Star Fortress was designed for planetary Ground Targets. It would explain why is was such easy prey in space. One fortress's payload was enough to take out the enemy star destroyer, so the Resistance took a gamble by hoping at least a few reached the target, knowing one payload was all they needed.

[@lyleseward8638]

Most important step is to make sure the bombers don't explode in friendly territory.

[@scarpro7622]

Solid Spanish intro Allen suena muy bien amigo

[@The7thFleet]

13:10 You forget that Poe literally destroyed the turbolasers exactly because of that

[@HitachiTRQ-225]

1:52 there is no evidence the USSR used human waves in ww2, that is a myth popularized by the film „Enemy At the Gates“ which is denounced by Veterans of the war, and historians alike.

[@jthopkins2544]

Thank you Allen!!!

[@zacharybyford8200]

I like to think that the reason those Resistance bombers were utterly obliterated is because they were retrofitted civilian mining ships. A proper military model could've had better shields, armor, and maybe even anti-fighter turrets.

[@RorikH]

Yeah, I would've liked them to return as the upgraded T-Wing bomber, this time with survivability. .

[@elijahmasula7281]

Ive once thought maybe the bomber would have been used to level imperial bases when the capital or other larger ships are fighting requiring something to support ground units without movie a ship away from the fight

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

Clearly, the star fortress was not designed to go into a combat scenario. They were probably designed to take down planetary shields after battleships and fighters took out all other space craft and defense satellites and could protect them against planetary weapons batteries. Once that was done a wing of star fortress could come in and overwhelm the planetary shields, which are capable of generating energy and particle shields at the same time, and take them down over that part of the planet and give the battleships the chance to get below the shields and start taking out the other shield generators.

[@mattheww.6232]

It's a specialized tool for wide area conventional destruction. If an enemy deploys a defense in depth strategy with adequate reinforcements it leaves you with two options. A fight for individual tactical positions and the enemy back fills reinforcements and makes new fortifications behind the point of contact WW1 attrition. If some sort of over run tactic is used with overwhelming forces on a small portion of the defense in depth, essentially that attacking force will be flanked and attacked from three sides. Or, you can used heavy bombers to moonscape a 10 mile wide, three mile deep hole in that defense in depth fortification line in a few minutes and rush in ground forces to pernitrate. In starwars, this would be pointless since everything is in range of space bombardment and shields exist. This leads to battles like Hoth, where a shield generator is the target of an an over whelming force attack to destroy the generator and open up bombardment from space.

[@jaytrashwade1-1]

The Imperial Super Star Destroyers are in line with Warhammer 40k capital ships. The smallest of Warhammer 40k Imperial capital ships is 5 km long, with the largest capital ships in the Imperium of Man being the Gloriana pattern Astartes Battle Barge at 36 km long.

[@charlottewolery558]

There is heavy Bomber that does make sense in universe, actually 2: The Cygnus Gunboat, which I consider the GOAT of the game Tie Fighter and the Cygnus Missile Boat. The Missile Boat in particular is all missiles, all the time. What is has, beyond one measly direct forward laser, is a SLAM feature that hyper accelerates the ship at the cost of laser power then shields. Heavy bombers can work, if we're going by X-Wing/TIE Fighter logic if you attach some sort of disposable battery array that functions like a fuel tank, where the HB supercharges it's systems, especially the shields then super charges in on the SLAM, drops payload and zips out before it takes enough power to penetrate it's shields. What HB need are drop tanks to supercharge their shields and a one time afterburner to take it in and past the target. Then it can lumber all it wants.

[@RorikH]

What's weird is that they gave Poe an experimental new turbo-booster, and then just... didn't do anything to help the actually slow ships.

[@charlottewolery558]

@@RorikH Well....putting in way more thought than Lucasfilm did on any part of TLJ, it might be because Incom is basically the Toyota flight vehicles with a lot of interchangeable parts and control schemes. Maybe the yokel mechanics knew Incom systems way better so could tinker with greater assurance. The Resistance being a guerrilla army is stupid beyond measure but given the premise, I can see a booster being cooked up by GFFA country boys for Incom vehicles rather than a relatively boutique manufacturer.

[@RorikH]

@@charlottewolery558 That... actually makes a surprising amount of sense. I think the trick to engineering in Star Wars is that all ships want to explode, and you've just got to replace all of the parts inside with different ones to convince them they already have.

[@josephfuller9539]

Watching this I could only remember the “Bacta War” X-Wing series book. It was a genius move by Rouge Squadron to take out a SSD.

[@grimjoker5572]

With the Star Fortress; the bombs dropping with gravity would work in space, considering there is gravity within the ship. If the bombs drop in this gravity and then out of it they will maintain their inertia and continue traveling in the direction they began falling. It's the one aspect of those bombers which is routinely criticized unjustly.

[@Sci-Fi-Mike]

Hola Alan. And Spanish is my first language. I live in Miami, Florida, USA, and so many of us speak both English and Spanish, though some people don't speak either that well. Anyway, great video, bud, and I love this.

[@esotericaetobscura9788]

I recently constructed a missile cruiser from a Barloz Heavy Transport with pairs of launchers on both the port and starboard sides for broadsides attacks on larger ships in an older ttrpg system . It also has laser turrets for personal defense.

[@Cookie12670]

Allen, me encanta como tu hablas de Star Wars. Your passion for all things Star Wars keeps me coming back. I’m more of a lore girl but I will still watch your weapon videos.

[@THF117]

I think while the Y wing fits so neatly into our ability to imagine fights in the series is it acts like a torpedo boat.

[@jeffreycarman2185]

Modify the design of a light freighter to have bomb bays instead of cargo holds and you have a super fast, maneuverable, capital ship killer that only needs between 1 and 5 crew to fight.

[@badsgt1]

The thing to remember about bombers is the primary mission is to deliver the ordnance, survival of the craft and crew is secondary

[@michaelnewswanger2409]

No, that is a stupid way to fight a war and is probably influenced by misunderstanding of US tactics during WW2. There were high bomber losses but that was done to force the Luftwaffe to engage; Luftwaffe fighter also had high losses. The goal of the US was to eliminate the ability of the Luftwaffe to engage over the D-day beaches. Because of the goal the losses were acceptable. Survival isn't secondary. Loss of trained men and war material loses wars. Loss is acceptable only when the loss to the enemy capability exceeds the loss to your capability. Casualties and damage are weighed against each other, neither is primary or secondary.

[@vincediscombe7360]

"noone else makes such an aggressive combination of a gunship and a transport" 40k's Valkyrie: "and I took that personally"

[@admiral_potato]

Really good video as always,love the content

[@wills2140]

2:00 You know something else we don't see in the Star Wars Gallery ? Continuing "evolution" of the bulk of the fighter fleets, iterative design improvements over these long periods in universe (this only seems to happen to the "Star Destroyers" - while the "X - Wing" seems to date back before the _Phantom Menace_ ). We also don't see proliferation of "outside" suppliers or other designs from non standard places - no passenger ship company coming up with fighting ships, no engine manufacturer proposing a different fighter for their engine. Good point that we don't really see something like the space equivalent to the "heavy bomber" - just the very old Y - Wing and the slightly newer Tie Bomber. Good video, thank you for the thought provoking commentary.

[@lanebowles2860]

I can't see these things being intended for regular Star Destroyers. Star Dreadnoughts, space stations, and ground facilities yes.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

Useless? No. Improperly used? Yes. There is a time & place for a "glass cannon". For a fighter sized thing with limited but almost captiol sized firepower.

[@tackyinbention6248]

When I heard that those small corvette frigate sized ships escorting the raddus was a bunker buster, I always wondered why didn't they use those instead, they looked to be a lot more durable than the bombers while moving at the same speed if not faster

[@eddapultstab2078]

The thing about strategic bombers is that even in real life they were basically flying ships. So the reason why we dont really see them because their star wars version would be small star ships dispensing munitions in a strategic scale. The starfortress is basically a civilian version of a military design too late to be deployed. If it had oversized torpedoes rather than excavation bombs then its threat rating would jump significantly.

[@TheEventHorizon909]

I still prefer the legends version the awesome K-Wing heavy bomber which actually was able to move around while keeping an incredible amount of firepower and durability

[@randallsanchez3161]

A lot of people don't realize have VERY limited missiles are in atmosphere and how much worse they would be in space. Missiles are launched and only have a powered flight mode of a few seconds. The most modern heat seeker is the AIM-9X and its rocket burns out in 6 seconds. Long range missiles like the AIM-120's engine lasts 10 seconds. They work because the burn at extreme speeds to gain momentum and then manuever onto a target on that momentum alone. Long range missiles like the AIM-120 AMMRAM will arc high into the sky so that it can come downwards on momentum alone. It doesn't have the speed or energy to deal with an aircraft that is maneuvering hard at long range. In space, you can't use air foils to make a missile move so you would need to have compressed air or mini engines to guide the thing. Those require a lot of fuel and would take up space which is already in short supply on a missile. It also means more mass which means more energy is needed to turn the thing which means its not going to be as maneuverable as the ship it's chasing. In short, missiles in space would be more about shooting in straight lines with some but not much changes in direction. For use against capital ships it makes more sense since they don't turn easily but for fighter to fighter use it really wouldn't work.

[@ominousmecha500]

honestly how the star fortresses got fragged as bad as they did is a testament to how inexperienced the resistance was just how much they were winging it like if they had a wider formation and basically just slow released their payloads and carpeted the dreadnought as soon as they got above it they probably could have crippled it to a point where even if it wasn't destroyed it was pretty much taken out of the fight instead of all clustering in on a single target in such a tight grouping enemy fire could be concentrated and they didn't have space to effectively cover themselves without risk of friendly fire as well one bomber being enough to destroy the weak spot they probably would have fared better not to mention the fact that their escort waited for enemy fighters to get into engagement range instead of screening ahead i think its less a failing of the platform and more a failing of tactical execution

[@badonkeykong7506]

Seems like after the Holdo Manuever they'd invent hyperdrive equiped missiles for large capitol ships. That weapon would redefine how space combat looks, making large capitol ships a thing of the past.

[@seanrea550]

This is one area where direct cross over does not work. The strategic bombers are a bombardment option. They also were not really capable of effectively hitting ships under steam during ww2, smart bombs can give them a better chance. What could threaten heavy ships were torpedo boats. With space faring small craft "gunboats" should fill the heavy strike/bomber role. Heavy bombers dont mske any sense. Take something like the ghost, falcon, or the razercrest and make them torpedo/gunboats that hit far harder than they can take.

[@arthurfrayn7619]

Good point, B-Wings in the game X-Wing vs TIE Fighter and Missile Boats/Assault Gunboats in TIE Fighter do this with homing torpedos.

[@lightspeedvictory]

Star Fortress was developed to help crack open strong Imperial holdouts on planets, not for one-shotting ISD’s (although it could certainly do so). You also forgot to mention the other more heavier versions of the Tie Bomber like the Decimator

[@josephharrison5639]

6:59 as a nascar fan I approve of this measurement

[@randomstuff6355]

"Only factions going against large capital ships use heavy bombers" TIE Interdictor, TIE Heavy Bomber and the TIE Heavy Bomber/Interceptor-Hybrid from the Force Unleashed-Comic: "Am i a joke to you?"

[@mateuszbanaszak4671]

"Bomber" in space combat could have a role of launching dumb-rockets, to overwhelm the point defense, before unloading its actual missiles. The "blinding", paired with some heavy defensive armament, could be what makes it different from a "Missile Boat".

[@cdmonmcginn7561]

IRL the difference between a WW2 heavy bomber and a modern Strategic bomber is night and day. a B-17 Flying Fortress Bomber had a payload of 8000-17000 pounds, it flew at around 300 mph, and had a range of somewhere less than 2000 nautical miles. (much less at the high end of its payload capacity, but that was largely due to external payload mounting) Its dry weight was 34000lbs a B-52 Stratofortress has a payload of 70,000 lbs, top speed of 650 mph, and a range of 8800 miles, without midair refueling. a B-52 has a payload capacity of 2 B-17s.

[@Dori-Ma]

The SF-17 has always struck me as a platform that would've been used by the Empire to carpet-bomb populations with no air defense. It's just to slow for hit-and-run minded rebels. Though, it should be faster. Consular c70s and Arquitens were faster and used to harass larger warships during the Clone Wars. So for my money, it would have made more sense for Escort type ships to be refitted with some close-in proton ordnance - rebirth of Torpedo Boats and Motor Torpedo Boats.

[@Cloud_Seeker]

"Why do Star Wars not have heavy bombers?" - Because they have the Y-wing. There is no need for a heavy bomber. It is literally used to attack heavily armored targets like capital ships. I think it carry enough firepower to replace a heavy bomber, while also being a fighter.

[@SceurdiaStudios]

The part around 12:50 reminded me of some statements (I'm not sure whether they're true or not) that flak destroyed more American heavy bombers compared to fighters. When flying above a city, German fighters would disengage and let the flak do the work, before re-engaging the already crippled bombers on their way home.

[@R4V3-0N]

Unsure if this is ever brought up in lore. But heavy bombers does make sense in my opinion in the star wars universe and also reminds me even closer to the early days of the B-17 Flying Fortress. The same way how the B/SF-17 Starfortress is struggling against ships like we saw in the film. The B-17 Flying Fortress had similar problems too which in our world was intended to be used as a kind of level naval bomber to strike enemy ships. This strategy proved to be unsuccessful due to the nature of trying to level bomb a target that can see you coming from kilometres away while trying to hose you down with every gun that can point in your direction, however, the B-17 proved to be an excellent platform to carry large payloads over strategic targets. In the Star Wars universe we have seen constantly examples of major land battles across various systems and planets where a target (ie: a shield generator, a bunker, a fortification, anti-ship artillery, etc) that would be an excellent choice for a strategic bomber to saturate with bombs (or precision strikes given the capabilities to do so). We have seen other star fighters take this role on to various degrees or a gunship or something inserting a strike team to take out or neutralize the target. This isn't to say such a platform would be invaluable and the best thing for any force to dedicate significantly into, but over the scale of the Star Wars universe and degree of countermeasures to things like planetary bombardments it isn't too out there to consider a place for something that could deliver a heavy payload on target another way.

[@abrinkman5]

The star fortress looks more like it was meant for planetary bombardment. It seemed more imperial in design.

[@mose717]

In the Pacific theater of WW2 a flight of B-17’s made bomb runs on the Japanese fleet. I think that was the inspiration for using heavy bombers against a capital ship.

[@snokevitiate1176]

Very good. I just saw this video, but as a Star Wars lore fan I agree that strategy is everything when it comes to waging even a ScI fi war. I doo wish they would make more original Star Wars films that are accurate in this way, so that they stop making failures like the Acolyte.

[@Hotspur37]

I think the SF was really intended for hitting surface targets on a planet not attacking a capital ship in space, but it was all they had on hand at the time.

[@tortenschachtel9498]

The Star Fortress simply makes no sense in a universe in which the YT1300f exists. They have a similar size (the YT1300 is longer, almost twice as wide, but not nearly as tall), yet the YT1300 is more maneuverable and has seemingly better shields, despite being decades older (or maybe that was just the Millenium Falcon). It has enough cargo space to carry a comparable amount of ordnance. Just install a proton torpedo launcher and a large magazine in the forward cargo spaces, you instantly have a more maneuverable and capable ship.

[@byron2FZ]

You're a bit mixed up on the Starfortress lore. It was never intended for Naval combat, that was the actions of a desperate Resistance who had used up all their proton torpedoes. The New Republic manufactured that ship for high altitude bombardment of Imperial Remnant bunkers and ground facilities in regions where the Republic held air superiority.

[@jennerdalay4300]

I would have converted an ARC-170 with steath/cloaking tech and used it as an Orbital Drop Platform for inserting intelligence agents, black-ops teams, etc, into hostile territory where regular aircraft/spacecraft cannot land. After which they could stay onsite and provide logistical support via orbital drop and even provide intelligence from high orbit.

[@Wintermute909]

I kinda love how generous Allan is when he says "he dug into the lore", when we all know the lore is really retroactively created to cover for terrible writing choices. Sometimes i actually think that the depth & detail of the lore & world building of SW might be so damn good *only due to* the sloppy writing of the main films! If the writing was always tight & if Lucas (Kathleen Kennedy etc) always applied consistent logic, then the fans & writers of all the non-film-Star Wars stuff might not have the need to put so much creativity into explaining those issues in the main films. But even with all of Lucas's inconsistent logic and odd plot holes, I've gotta give him mad respect for being able to tap into some very deep & very different archetypes and meld them all into a fantastic whole!)

[@varundattoo9512]

It's more due to the evolution of technology and warfare. Heavy bombers were at the stage where they could be effective until the technologies emerged that essentially nullified their usage. I don't think people realise that we are currently at the burgeoning stage for railguns, photonic weaponry(essentially Death Rays) and drone combat. Think about it for a second, we are at the early stages of disintegration guns. Scifi and futurism pushes technology and innovation ever forward, so its wild to think that, that's where we currently stand.

[@talscorner3696]

ARC-170 gang, here! Also, I have noticed we don't see much in the way of missile boats

[@joes5010]

I think the main problem is that the heavy bomber just doesnt fit the needs of the rebellion/resistance. Even a faster heavy bomber than the starfortress is to vulnerable to the speed and armament of a fighter so sending them against a fleet that uses fighter swarm tactics is just foolish, they can only be really used in space combat with complete fighter superiority and that is impossible against the empires swarms (even if an X-wing or A-wing would win every dogfight due to quality over quantity it doesnt matter as the 5 or 6 TIE's not engaged would rip the bombers a new one). Conversely the empire could probably make good use (in fighter doctrine capability, they dont actually need to though) of the starfortress as long as it was bought up to a bare minimum capital ship weapon avoidance levels because they can engage all enemy fighters for long enough to get the bombs away.

[@levitschetter5288]

The B-25 was a medium bomber, and as such had a much lower capacity. You may be thinking of the B-24 which was another heavy heavy bomber, similar in appearance to the Lancaster

[@samuelzuleger5134]

So, for real-world understanding of why strategic bombers are disappearing, a heavy-laden F-4 Phantom II (Vietnam) or an F-16 (1991 Desert Storm) could carry as many bombs (at least in weight) as a B-17. Those are Fighter planes. The B-52, B-2, and B-1B are still in service only because of their use of JDAMs (guided precision bombs), cruise missiles, and nuclear capabilities, all of which can be launched tens, if not hundreds, of kilometers away from the target, and can hit within 10 meters of target. The Star Wars bomber (in general) would be better served with long range cruise missiles or guided munitions so that it can achieve its mission without getting close to anti-fighter batteries.

[@brockwilkie6022]

Yeah, how they should be used would be how we use 52s now, mostly large cruise missiles and the like. That star fortress could hold a lot of really big proton missiles and could launch them from a distance to allow the fleet to escape. OR strap the smallest hyperdrive possible on that thing, fill it up with explosives and launch it lol

[@vagrant2502]

As many have probably stated, Star Wars is trying to put WW2 style carrier craft tactics into a space setting, which does not work. Fighters and bombers use horizon and sky cover to surprise, where in space, only way to do that is hide behind a planet, and even then it might not work. But then Star Wars seems to alter physics in space so who am I to know.

[@AaronScottLawford]

00:00 I love Allan’s intro 😁

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

Ok here's the problem, this is space so these are space ships. a light bomber is a light bomber.. but lets consider a b-17. heavy ordane payload, turrets all over it. So you have a craft with 4-8 turrets, plus a heavy anti-ship or anti-ground load. thats... not a bomber... this is something that might fall into the corvette size, or light freighter size. B17 is 74' long, crew of 10, top twin turret, bottom twin turret, rear turret (twin or double), front turret (single) waist turrets - single. 74' long though in space craft isn't a star fighter... So what we are dealing with wouldn't be considered a star fighter... or a bomber. lets look at a star war "style" ship in that size. twin laser turret top, twin laser bottom, twin laser rear. two side mounted twin linked blasters able to fire forward or cover the sides. 1 forward ion pair "fixed" and 2-4 HEAVY anti-warship warhead launchers forward. This wouldn't be a fighter, or heavy bomber though. this would be... A Torpedo boat.

[@zelithfang2365]

Always funny to see people trying to find some way to give the Star Fortress good reason to exist and say it in fact wasn't trash in most cases. It was, it's ship was somehow fully exposed to the void of space with no shields yet somehow everyone was safe and it had to go directly ontop of its target. Sure, they retconed in that it had a shield, and yes it was definitely a retcon, that "fixed it" but that doesn't change the fact that in the movie it had no visible forcefield while we have seen many different visible forcefields in Star Wars lol. Slander aside, thanks to its massive payload it was absolute suicide to be anywhere near by one because when it got shot, didn't even have to be fully destroyed but a precise shot that penetrated its payload, the ship and anything around it would be caught up in a massive explosion. They were also very slow so it was easy to take them down. At least the ARC-170 had a passable defense for when it was intercepted by enemy fighters along with being able to launch its payload as torpedod so it didn't need to wait to be directly on top of it's target to fire. The Y Wing was similarly slow and didn't have the best star fighter defense but it at least was sturdy af being able to take a good few hits. The Star Fortress had none of these. It was in no way suitable for any space battles. Its only real use is being using in atmosphere to bombard enemy strongholds, fortifications and things similar to it. That is if they have no anti air defenses, if so then its still useless. TLDR: the Star Fortress was almost an all around ineffective bomber that only use was to be used in atmosphere to strike slow moving or entrenched forces who didn't have anti air.

[@jaketheripper7385]

"The Rebel Alliance didn't have very powerful capital ships"? Are you sure about that? One of the primary capital ships of the Alliance was the Mon Calamari Cruiser which was quite robust and capable of dishing out respectable firepower. Also the B-Wing was a blockade runner, not a bomber in the strictest sense (although it could be modified to suit more of a bombing mission profile).